An Amoralist's Philosophical Standpoint

[stevil]

In discussion in another thread I stated that I was an amoralist. Laudate_Dominum was wondering how I could be an amoralist and yet desire euthanasia to be a choice as Laudate_Dominum considers this to be a moral issue. Well, this thread is to express how I feel my amoralist philosophical standpoint can hold this stance.

For other participants, I understand the desire to debunk me and prove me wrong, my stance is contradictory to the Catholic standpoint. However in order to get my point across I feel the first emphasis must be on understanding my standpoint (even though I don't expect you to agree with it). It is not until you understand it that we can have a valid debate about whether it holds water or not, if it is still your desire to debunk me.
With this in mind I will not address any debunking comments until this understanding is achieved.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism"]Amoralism or Moral Nihilism means[/url]
"the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be make-believe".

As a good starting point here is a related quote a member of an Atheist forum helped form based on my philosophy as I explained it to him.

[size=5][b][i]"Nature is governed by amoral power which permits whatever power can accomplish, so every living creature has the natural right to do whatever it can, and every law is an infringement, sometimes reasonable, never unquestionable."[/i][/b][/size]

[Amppax]

first question: On what do you base this conclusion? What sort of logical backing can you provide this position?

Edited January 12, 2012 by Amppax

[stevil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1326341703' post='2367408']
first question: On what do you base this conclusion? What sort of logical backing can you provide this position?
[/quote]
The first part is a premise
[size=5][b][i]"Nature is governed by amoral power which permits whatever power can accomplish, so every living creature has the natural right to do whatever it can"[/i][/b][/size]
By amoral power I mean the rules of the Universe. e.g. matter with mass cannot travel faster than the speed of light. If we look to the Universe as being our eternal regression then these are the most basic and primary set of rules that we have. Lets call this Physical Law.
So if Physical Law defines our primary constraints, then Physical Rights are our ability to perform actions within the boundaries of Physical Law.
This is amoral. It is unintelligent and has no concept of moral wrong and right. Operating within Physical Rights I could kill someone simply because this is physically possible.

The middle part is another premise in recognition that rules restrict rather than create.
[size=5][b][i]"every law is an infringement"[/i][/b][/size]

We cannot create rules to extend Physical Rights. For example we cannot define a law making it possible for matter with mass to travel faster than the speed of light.
Hence any man made Legal Law must put constraints on top of Physical Rights, this being an infringement.

The last part is the conclusion which I hopefully will be able to show you how an amoralist atheist can get to without the requirement for a morality standard.
[size=5][b][i]"sometimes reasonable, never unquestionable"[/i][/b][/size]

But I need to explain some more things in order to get there. Do you clearly understand the two premises that I have offered?

[Ice_nine]

Just so I understand you, a few questions

So amoral power = physical laws?

And I don't understand how the ability to do something magically becomes a natural "right." I'm not sure why the term "right" is used at all. I can physically do x so therefore I have a right to do x. Your premise doesn't really make sense. SO . . .

Could you define what you mean by "rights" without making reference to where you think they are derived from? For example, I believe that rights are in not so many words: sanctions that are guaranteed by our humanity. I didn't even "bring God" into the definition, even though the source of rights is implied. In a sense rights are something that everyone deserves.

"every law (within the social contract, legal system I assume?) is an infringement [upon these rights]"

so you believe that it's desirable to infringe upon rights? But only certain times? And since actions can neither be wrong or right, immoral or moral, does it then follow that the infringements can neither be right or wrong?

Isn't this a brand of relativism? Only with less cahones, because it won't say "I personally believe x is wrong/right" but "I personally believe x is not desirable."

Edited January 12, 2012 by Ice_nine

[Papist]

This philosophy was used to murder tens and tens of million innocent lives in the 20th century.

[his_remnant]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326340580' post='2367399']
It is not until you understand it that we can have a valid debate about whether it holds water or not, if it is still your desire to debunk me.
With this in mind I will not address any debunking comments until this understanding is achieved.
[/quote]

I agree that we need to understand each other first and in fact I would say that "debunking" your philosophy can never be a goal because you are a human person and therefore are free until the end. I would just invite you to consider what anyone here says without seeing it as an attack on your philosophy. I also ask you to seek to understand us and realize that we will always say the truth that we see not because we want to debunk you but because we find that truth to be something so beautiful and worthwhile we can't help but want to share it.

My question will you inform us when you feel you sufficiently have been understood and what will be the basis of you deciding you have been understood?

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326342949' post='2367424']
The middle part is another premise in recognition that rules restrict rather than create.
[size=5][b][i]"every law is an infringement"[/i][/b][/size]
But I need to explain some more things in order to get there. Do you clearly understand the two premises that I have offered?
[/quote]

I'm trying to understand this point, but I'm having trouble. I understand that some rules only restrict, but I feel that there are some rules that free us. George Weigel expresses this sense of certain rules giving us freedom in a musical sense. It's been awhile since I read his book so I don't exactly remember how it goes (or even which instrument he used in the analogy) but the basic gist goes as follows,

In one sense of the word, I am free to pick up a guitar and play whatever I want. I haven't taken guitar lessons so all I would be able to make is a whole bunch of noise that sounds like trash to pretty much everybody (including myself). But if someone gives me the 'rules' of playing the guitar (how to make all of the cords, how to play scales, etc.), then I am free to create music.

I'm certainly free to attempt making music without those rules, but without those rules, I sincerely doubt that I'd have the physical ability to create music.

[sixpence]

ok... I believe I understand this. You do not hold humans to be above animals or any of the other objects in the universe that cannot do right or wrong. Everything does what it does and that's it. Any rules and regulations we put on ourselves in terms of how we behave are considered restrictions on everything we Could do, and they may or may not be beneficial. Does this sound right?

[stevil]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1326383762' post='2367634']
ok... I believe I understand this. You do not hold humans to be above animals or any of the other objects in the universe that cannot do right or wrong. Everything does what it does and that's it. Any rules and regulations we put on ourselves in terms of how we behave are considered restrictions on everything we Could do, and they may or may not be beneficial. Does this sound right?
[/quote]
Perfect!

[stevil]

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1326382118' post='2367618']
[b]I'm certainly free to attempt making music without those rules[/b], but without those rules, I sincerely doubt that I'd have the physical ability to create music.
[/quote]
The bolded bit is the key point. There are no guarantees that you will be able to make functional music, it may be a chaotic mess, therefore rules might be desired.
BTW: There are many famous music composers that learned by ear rather than by theory.

Edited January 12, 2012 by stevil

[stevil]

[quote name='his_remnant' timestamp='1326379771' post='2367583']
My question will you inform us when you feel you sufficiently have been understood and what will be the basis of you deciding you have been understood?
[/quote]
I will know based on the questions coming back at me. Certain questions will make me aware that what I am saying hasn't been understood.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1326372038' post='2367528']
So amoral power = physical laws?
[/quote]
The amoral power = the Universe
The Universe has the attributes termed as Physical Laws.

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1326372038' post='2367528']
Isn't this a brand of relativism? Only with less cahones, because it won't say "I personally believe x is wrong/right" but "I personally believe x is not desirable."
[/quote]
It comes down to how the legal laws are justified. I am going to try and show you how I can justify these without calling upon a moral wrong/right or my own belief of what is desirable.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1326372038' post='2367528']
Could you define what you mean by "rights" without making reference to where you think they are derived from? For example, I believe that rights are in not so many words: sanctions that are guaranteed by our humanity. In a sense rights are something that everyone deserves.
[/quote]
In order for you to state "sanctions that are guaranteed by our humanity" you would need to have some definitions around what you mean by "guaranteed". I would say that for humans "death" is guaranteed, not much else is.

My thoughts and philosophical standpoint are not completely constrained by the English language.

I recognise that some people (probably most) consider the word "rights" to have a moral aspect to it. These people might consider murder not to be a right because they consider murder as an immoral act or in your case against life which you probably would consider to be something which ought to be guaranteed by our humanity.

I suspect that the English language has been influenced via thousands of years of theistic philosophy given that theism is more predominant than atheism. Language is a very dynamic beast with new words forming, old words being deprecated and existing words being redefined constantly. Certain phrases or words also become socially popular from time to time. With this perceived theistic bias it might be difficult for me, being constrained by only the current definition of words and terms, to have my own non theistic philosophy be logically consistent.

So for the purpose of this thread lets redefine the term "rights" to mean "allowed" rather than "ethically allowed" or "actions guaranteed by our humanity"

[quote name='his_remnant' timestamp='1326379771' post='2367583']
I would just invite you to consider what anyone here says without seeing it as an attack on your philosophy.
[/quote]
Agreed, I am wasting my time here if I am not welcoming feedback from the participants of this forum for my own personal consideration.

[his_remnant]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326391074' post='2367698']
The amoral power = the Universe
The Universe has the attributes termed as Physical Laws.
[/quote]

I don't understand your premise of the universe as a power. Can you expand on that?

Thank you for your answers to my previous post.

[stevil]

[quote name='his_remnant' timestamp='1326403946' post='2367872']
I don't understand your premise of the universe as a power. Can you expand on that?

Thank you for your answers to my previous post.
[/quote]
It is stated in a Mythical sense as if it is an entity that allows certain actions and disallows others.
It is derived from a recognition that rights are defined by law and that law has a law maker.
The physical nature of our Universe is that we are bound to some constraints (laws) hence it is physically impossible for matter with mass to travel faster than the speed of light.
So whom or what created these laws?

For an atheist, the answer is unknown, we could simply ascribe these laws as inherent attributes of our Universe.

[b]BTW: [/b][i]It is possible that Existence itself is the law maker and hence we might have Existence Law and Existence Rights distinct from our Universe's Physical Law and Physical Rights. Our Universe might be one of many universes in existence, all bound to Existence Law. Possibly each universe contains a different set of constraints (laws) infringing on Existence Rights and hence Physical Law and Physical Rights might be different between universes. But we don't know. All that we can observe as of today is our own Universe.[/i]
[i]I am not excluding the possibility that Existence Law was defined by a god[/i]

For the purposes of this thread, we only need to go as far back as Physical Law and Physical Rights as these are the consistent observations that all things within our universe are physically bound to.